What does the Bible teach regarding divorce? This has been a long debated question among conservative scholars, and given the sensitive nature of the issue, it's not an easy question to tackle. In this post, I will examine three common views on divorce and give you my opinion on what Jesus expects from us in marriage.
Three of the four gospels discuss Jesus' view on divorce. In two of these gospels, Jesus gives an (seemingly) absolute prohibition of divorce. In Luke 16:18, Jesus says, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." Similarly, in Mark 10:11-12, Jesus says, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." However, the book of Matthew provides an exception clause. Matthew 5:32 says, "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The most common view that I have come across with on the issue of divorce is exactly what Matthew seems to imply: that Jesus forbids divorce except in the case of marital unfaithfulness.
In Genesis 2:24-45, God gave us the prescription for the marriage, which was an institution established even before the fall. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." From these verses we see that, as the saying goes, marriage involves leaving ("Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother") and cleaving ("and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh").
However, in the Old Testament, God gives an allowance for divorce due to man's fallen nature, and it seems that in Matthew Jesus still allows divorce to an extent. People who hold this view say that the exception clause given in Matthew would be obvious to Jesus' listeners, and thus it is left out of Mark and Luke.
Another view that I have encountered says that, while the above is true, 1 Corinthians 6 prohibits filing lawsuits against other believers (as I discussed a few days ago), and in modern times, filing for a lawsuit would be bringing one's case before a secular judge. Thus, if one's spouse is indeed a believer, he or she should follow the Matthew 18 principle and seek the spouse's repentence. If the spouse does not turn from his or her sin, the church should administer discipline, in which case the spouse would be declared an unbeliever ("And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector...") and could be divorced.
However a final view -- which I also believe is the correct view -- says that divorce is never permitted, and seems to solve major questions from the first two views. First, why divorce would be absolutely permitted in Mark and Luke but not Matthew? An examination of the Greek text gives us a big clue. The passage in Matthew 5 does not actually use the Greek word for adultery (moicheia), which many have found strange before. Instead it uses the Greek word for sexual immorality (porneia). Besides a similar passage on divorce found in Matthew 19, the only other place this word is used in Matthew is Matthew 15:19 ("For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander"), where the word "porneia" is found alongside the word "moicheia" -- thus, surely this verse isn't using two different words for adultery (notice, the verse does not say, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, adultery...")?
Instead, by including the exception clause, Matthew seems to be pointing back to the story of Joesph and Mary in Matthew 1, in which Joseph decided to quietly divorce Mary, to whom he was betrothed ("And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly"). A betrothal in Joseph's time was taken much more seriously than our engagements, and breaking a betrothal was considered divorce. Thus, Matthew is making it clear to his readers that Joseph would have done no wrong if he were to divorce Mary in this instance, as indeed they had not yet become "one flesh" and Mary was suspected of sexual immorality. The reason Matthew includes the exception clause is because it is the only book to include the account of Joseph's planning to divorce Mary.
As well as clearing up problems with the first two interpretations of Jesus' words on divorce, this third view simply makes much more sense. If a married couple truly become "one flesh," no divorce could ever break the emotional bonds they still have, even if the divorce was because of sexual immorality. The third view, thus, promotes a much higher view of marriage. (Thanks to John Piper and his explanation of divorce for his explanation of this view of divorce).
Now, before concluding, I thought one more common view on divorce should be discussed. This view says that, in addition to an allowance in Matthew for divorce on the ground of sexual immorality, divorce and remarriage is also permitted if an unbeliever deserts his or her Christian spouse, citing 1 Corinthians 7:15, which says, "if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." The phrase "the brother or sister is not enslaved" has been interpreted to mean that the believing partner can remarry if the unbelieving partner divorces him. However, I believe that a more accurate reading of the passage, which would not contradict Jesus' prohibition on divorce and remarriage (remarriage is only fine after a spouse dies), simply says that the believing spouse is free to let the unbeliever leave if the unbeliever truly wants to do so, and the believing spouse can live in peace. The word enslaved here (or "bound" in some versions) is a different Greek word than used in 1 Corinthians 7:39, "A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives," which talks about a wife being legally bound to her husband." The word used in verse 15 implies the person does not have to live in bondage (he or she can live in peace), not that he or she is free to remarry because the marriage bond is broken.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Interesting subject, grace. I wrote a paper in my English Comp class on this subject about the varying views, but focused more on the rising rate of divorce within the church. A couple of points to raise..in the OT God spoke of divorcing Israel for her spiritual adulteries..not necessarily saying that that constitutes a different reading of Jesus' teaching in Matt. just something to note. Also, God gave marriage to all mankind, not just his covenant people, so it's also a civil matter, involving government and law, so I'm not sure the passage prohibiting lawsuits with other believers would apply. Before anyone says."yea, but God's law is higher than human law"...remember that there are no authorities which God has not ordained. On the other hand, the age of "no fault" divorce throws a new twist into the equation..one can now obtain a divorce on no grounds other than "irreconcilable differences"..a rather broad range of reason. Since, in our day, one party could obtain a divorce on these grounds regardless of what the other party desires..and has no legal recourse to prevent it, where does that place the party who does not desire the divorce? As I pointed out on the lawsuit thread, though it doesn't negate the teachings of scripture, the rapidly changing legal landscape certainly throws some complications into the mix that make things a bit more difficult to navigate through.
One more thing, even those who hold to allowable divorce in the case of adultery, for the sake of argument, though it would be allowed, it certainly is no command to divorce..in fact the book of Hosea makes a case for forgiveness in such instances..I've also seen the 1`Cor. passage abused and stretched beyond recognition. Just some food for thought for those on all sides of this issue.
Just some food for thought. One thing that has not been mentioned is abuse. It is a real problem in the churches as it is in society, as you all well know by now!
It is rare to hear a pastor discuss spouse abuse in terms of scripture. How would continuous abuse affect the interpretation of scripture here?
(By the way, you would not believe the amount of pastors that counsel women: You are just not loving him enough)
I am not trying for a fight. I am seriously interested in your thoughts.
BTW: gug, your blog does not refresh if you click the header. I have downloaded the IE updates and my page refresh has disappeared! Very frustrating)
lin,
It's a tough issue, to be sure. I would recommend Dr. Rogers' advice on this issue.
Regarding the refresh issue, I usually just press F5.
Lin,
I think that if a spouse is abusive, then the marriage vows have been broken.
If the vows have already been broken, then divorce isn't really wrong, because the vows have already broken.
that may sound like a stretch, but sin is the same way. Our marriage to God was broken when we sinned. God divorced us. He gave us over to the desires of our flesh.
Of course, God remarried, also.
A question that I have, though is whether there is a difference between Spiritual marriage and civil marriage. In other words, can two people be married in the eyes of God, but not be recognized by a government?
God gave us human government...for a reason...making marriage a civil, as well as a spiritual matter is right in my view...at least at one time, the civil law concerning marriage enforced the rights and obligations of the marriage covenant. The family unit is the basic unit of an ordered and civilized society...government authority should be active in preserving that.
david,
God gave marriage to all mankind...I believe whether a married couple are Christian or not, He still recognizes the marriage, and holds the parties accountable, since it was He who instituted it, and as I said, gave to all mankind. jmho.
yeah, I understand and agree with that. However, my question was whether the spiritual side can be divorced from the civil side. I agree that the civil law of marriage cannot stand alone, but can the spiritual?
david,
It's a complicated question in the sense that our civil laws have changed so much. There was a time when the judiciary upheld the Biblical tenets concerning marriage...it wasn't so easy to get a divorce..they made it difficult in order to preserve the family unit, and hold the feet of the ones in the marriage covenant to the fire, so to speak. I also think marriage is a spiritual matter, even when the marriage partners aren't Christians..partly because it is a relationship ordained by God himself...so it is spiritual by nature...also the very nature of that one-flesh union is spiritual. Many people don't understand that a commitment to another person, consummated by a physical union, bonds two people in a way that is deep, mysterious, and difficult to fully understand..much as the mysterious union of Christ and his bride, the church, which is pictured in the marriage covenant is. In divorce, most feel the pain, but don't fully understand the source of it...that mysterious bond that has been created, has been torn asunder..not a clean break..but a tearing apart, leaving not 2 whole people, but 2 torn people, due to that one-flesh principle. This is why so many struggle in marriage...so many already have bonded themselves to another in this way outside the safety and lifelong commitment of marriage, before they ever get to the altar. God didn't intend that we bond ourselves in that way with another outside a lifelong covenant relationship..when it's violated, there are consequences to suffer. To answer your question as best I know how: The civil authorities can dissolve the contract, divide assets, assign parental duties and responsibilities, and legally restore each party to the rights and privileges of single people in the eyes of the law...however, no lawyer or judge or any civil authority has power to remove that mysterious bond created in marriage...or the spiritual/mental/emotional consequences of it being torn asunder. In that sense...that's the only separation I can see between the two.
Post a Comment